EPA Lead Pipe Rule Good for Justice, But May Come at High Cost

The EPA’s goal to replace all lead drinking water pipes in the US within 10 years is ambitious and furthers environmental justice, water attorneys and environmental groups say, but some former agency officials worry the goal may be too costly to meet.

The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday announced its proposed Lead and Copper Rule Improvements, or LCRI, which would require water utilities to replace 10% of their lead service lines annually to avoid contaminating drinking water with lead. The proposal would replace a Trump-era rule that calls for replacing just 3% of lead pipes each year.

Contamination from lead pipes “disproportionately impacts communities of color, low-income communities, Black communities,” and the rule will remedy the problem in the places where lead is “most rampant,” said Jeremy Orr, an adjunct professor at the Michigan State University College of Law and director of litigation and advocacy partnerships at Earthjustice.

“Aggressive implementation of this will be significant to withstand legal challenges,” Orr said.

The $15 billion for lead service line replacement allocated by Congress in the 2021 infrastructure law will help fund the pipe replacements mandated by the proposed rule, according to the EPA. Funds from the agency’s Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, which provides grants and loans for water system improvements, can also be used.

A Political Statement?

Several former EPA officials say they have concerns about the agency’s ability to meet its goal and whether it’s necessary.

Available funding is insufficient to meet EPA’s goals, which could cost up to $115 billion to accomplish, said Brent Fewell, a lawyer who served as principal deputy assistant EPA administrator in the Office of Water during the George W. Bush administration.

“Absent more resources, it’s unrealistic and a pipe dream to think that removal of all lead services lines will be accomplished in 10 years,” Fewell said. “While it’s a laudable goal, the LCRI’s deadline is simply too aggressive with the current level of funding and technical assistance available to communities.”

Many small water systems across the US haven’t begun working on their lead pipe inventories, which are due by next October, he said.

Fewell said the EPA is mandating replacement of lead pipes even if lead levels in drinking water haven’t reached EPA’s “action level” of exceedance—the point at which water utilities must notify the public about dangerous lead levels. The rule proposes to reduce the level to 10 micrograms per liter from 15 micrograms.

Peter Grevatt, director of the EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water in the Obama and Trump administrations, said the EPA’s new goal is “ambitious,” but will come at great near-term costs with greater near-term benefits.

“Customers served by water systems that include lead service lines will ultimately have to bear much of the cost for meeting this goal, either through increased rates or through other revenue sources such as taxes on the local population,” said Grevatt, now the CEO of the Water Research Foundation.

If lead pipes aren’t actually contaminating drinking water, the EPA may be wasting federal dollars in mandating their removal, said Leonard Miller, a senior adviser at environmental permitting firm Dawson & Associates who was an EPA lawyer in the 1970s. He is now of counsel at Sullivan & Worcester LLP.

“Should we be deciding if we should be replacing our pipes, or looking for where there is an environmental problem?” Miller said. “The question is whether what we’re doing makes sense in an environmental context, or is it a political statement?”

Lead contamination from water pipes occurs when the water’s chemical composition and pH change. Drinking water in Flint, Mich., was contaminated after the city switched its water source, causing lead pipes to corrode, for example.

“If they’re not harming anyone, and there’s no indication that there’s bioavailability, then what are you doing it for?” Miller said, referring to lead pipe replacement.

‘Poison Lurking’ in Water

But EPA said in a statement Thursday that no lead level in drinking water is safe. Lead can cause cancer, high blood pressure, heart disease, and decreased kidney function in adults while impairing mental and physical development in children.

“Lead in drinking water is a generational public health issue, and EPA’s proposal will accelerate progress towards President Biden’s goal of replacing every lead pipe across America once and for all,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a statement.

The draft rule calls for drinking water systems to more frequently communicate with residents about the utility’s plans to replace lead service lines.

Water systems are currently required to conduct an initial lead pipe inventory by fall 2024. The proposed new rule would require them to regularly update those inventories, create a plan to replace the pipes, and track the materials used to manufacture them.

“Lead is an invisible, insidious, and all-too-common poison lurking in the tap water of millions of Americans,” Adrienne Hollis, vice president for environmental justice, climate, and community revitalization at the National Wildlife Federation, said in a statement. “This proposed rule from the EPA will help communities replace lead pipes and prevent future tragedies like what we have seen in places like Flint.”

The proposed Lead and Copper Rule Improvements will be open for a 60-day public comment period once it is published in the Federal Register in the coming days. The EPA will host a public hearing on the proposal on Jan. 16.